Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Why do only those who believe in climate change 110% get funding to "research" a forgone conclusion while those who express doubt get fired or their research denied? That's not how science works but it's how scientism works.
Click to expand...
Those who express doubt probably get fired or defunded because at this point, expressing doubt is indicative of scientific incompetence. The same way it would be in medicine if a nurse denied germ theory or cell death.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Those who express doubt probably get fired or defunded because at this point, expressing doubt is indicative of scientific incompetence. The same way it would be in medicine if a nurse denied germ theory or cell death.
Click to expand...
That's untrue. Scientismists make that claim but the reality is because of statist agenda those who have valid criticism are silenced. Those who are legit scientists and know the truth is somewhere in the middle keep quiet.

At one time gays in the DSM for psychological diseases labeled them as mentally ill. The truth eventually came out but because of government backing that gays were degenerate they were silenced, hence the term in the closet. The same with gays in the military.

Our government also said how nice we were for freeing and giving "democracy" to oppressed nations but ironically it took a gay female soldier by the name of Chelsea Manning to prove their claims were indeed bullshit.

If climate change is such a real threat why does the big good government punish the poor with smog tests, nuclear rod disposal fees on electric bills, redemption value tax on drink bottles, winterization additives expense to gas, banning plastic straws, plastic bag fees, etc.

Yet China's biggest 15 cargo ships pollute more than all the world's cars combined, corporations that don't pollute can sell carbon credits to those who do so they can continue to pollute more and more rather than fix their shit. Etc.

So it's not indicative of scientific incompetence but of scientism being the new global religion to fool the sucker populace.

Hey I'm all for not polluting and conservation, I support several environmentalists causes like Sea Shepard, but I get mad about getting lied to so I pay for assholes in government corporatism to get rich off my labor.

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
That's untrue. Scientismists make that claim but the reality is because of statist agenda those who have valid criticism are silenced. Those who are legit scientists and know the truth is somewhere in the middle keep quiet.

At one time gays in the DSM for psychological diseases labeled them as mentally ill. The truth eventually came out but because of government backing that gays were degenerate they were silenced, hence the term in the closet. The same with gays in the military.

Our government also said how nice we were for freeing and giving "democracy" to oppressed nations but ironically it took a gay female soldier by the name of Chelsea Manning to prove their claims were indeed bullshit.

If climate change is such a real threat why does the big good government punish the poor with smog tests, nuclear rod disposal fees on electric bills, redemption value tax on drink bottles, winterization additives expense to gas, banning plastic straws, plastic bag fees, etc.

Yet China's biggest 15 cargo ships pollute more than all the world's cars combined, corporations that don't pollute can sell carbon credits to those who do so they can continue to pollute more and more rather than fix their shit. Etc.

So it's not indicative of scientific incompetence but of scientism being the new global religion to fool the sucker populace.

Hey I'm all for not polluting and conservation, I support several environmentalists causes like Sea Shepard, but I get mad about getting lied to so I pay for assholes in government corporatism to get rich off my labor.

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/
Click to expand...
The good thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe it
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The good thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe it
Click to expand...
Really? So is it the big bang or big crunch? Are gays really a disease? Is there a magical 5th state of matter called aether? Is the Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us?Fermentation is a purely chemical process. Because science says those were all true!

 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Because science says those were all true!
Click to expand...
No, people employing substandard methods, sometimes being completely influenced by things like culture, tradition, and religion, said those things were true. It was science that others correctly employed to provide evidence the big bang theory is true, gays are not a disease, no such thing as aether, the Earth is not the center of the universe, and revolves around the Sun.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
No, people employing substandard methods, sometimes being completely influenced by things like culture, tradition, and religion, said those things were true. It was science that others correctly employed to provide evidence the big bang theory is true, gays are not a disease, no such thing as aether, the Earth is not the center of the universe, and revolves around the Sun.
Click to expand...
And in a hundred years our methods will get called substandard. Meanwhile the poor pay climate change penalties while the rich and government continue to contribute to what they blame us for.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's not because of science. That's because of politics.
Click to expand...
Politics and science are so intertwined it's hard to tell the difference.

"no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels." Colin Wilson
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
That's untrue. Scientismists make that claim but the reality is because of statist agenda those who have valid criticism are silenced. Those who are legit scientists and know the truth is somewhere in the middle keep quiet.

At one time gays in the DSM for psychological diseases labeled them as mentally ill. The truth eventually came out but because of government backing that gays were degenerate they were silenced, hence the term in the closet. The same with gays in the military.

Our government also said how nice we were for freeing and giving "democracy" to oppressed nations but ironically it took a gay female soldier by the name of Chelsea Manning to prove their claims were indeed bullshit.

If climate change is such a real threat why does the big good government punish the poor with smog tests, nuclear rod disposal fees on electric bills, redemption value tax on drink bottles, winterization additives expense to gas, banning plastic straws, plastic bag fees, etc.

Yet China's biggest 15 cargo ships pollute more than all the world's cars combined, corporations that don't pollute can sell carbon credits to those who do so they can continue to pollute more and more rather than fix their shit. Etc.

So it's not indicative of scientific incompetence but of scientism being the new global religion to fool the sucker populace.

Hey I'm all for not polluting and conservation, I support several environmentalists causes like Sea Shepard, but I get mad about getting lied to so I pay for assholes in government corporatism to get rich off my labor.

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/
Click to expand...
Much of what you just said is false or like the best of propaganda, partially true.

For example, the gross tons of fossil fuel emissions from all the cars in the world dwarf those from the 15 transport ships. It's not even close.

Your reasoning against climate change for example doesn't even contain good logic much less get close to the truth.
"If climate change is such a real threat why does the big good government punish the poor with smog tests, nuclear rod disposal fees" This is not even a valid if-then statement.

Human caused climate change is a real threat to large populations of people and countries. The difficulty of addressing climate change (smog tests, etc) doesn't prove or disprove that statement. What you are using is the old logical fallacy argument laughingly called a Red Herring (ignoratio elenchi)

A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. Red herrings are typically related to the issue in question but aren’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing they confuse and distract.


much of what you have been saying lately fits this and other logical fallacies, otherwise called "bad arguments".
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Politics and science are so intertwined it's hard to tell the difference.

"no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels." Colin Wilson
Click to expand...
Not how science works.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Not how science works.
Click to expand...
Science tries to find answers in the outside world. But we can't find them there. The truth resides inside ourself.Humans have a disease that compels them to seek information through destruction, and unless we change our ways bad can only happen.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Science tries to find answers in the outside world. But we can't find them there. The truth resides inside ourself. Humans have a disease that compels them to seek information through destruction, and unless we change our ways bad can only happen.
Click to expand...
Science is the investigation of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. We use science to base our answers to problems or issues because it is based upon facts and not belief. Belief alone is not reliable. Belief based upon facts, observation and experimentation is not perfect but much more reliable than belief that is not supported by facts.

Science does not apply to the mystical. Religion is better suited for that. You can believe what you want but no matter how hard you believe, when you stare at goats you can't make them fall over through your thoughts.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Why do only those who believe in climate change 110% get funding to "research" a forgone conclusion, while those who express doubt get fired or their research denied? That's not how science works but it's how scientism works.

Scientism starts with a conclusion and uses back propagation to find a cause.

Science starts with a proposed cause and uses forward propagation to support a conclusion.

I believe in science but despise climate scientism.
Click to expand...
Because climate change is supported by science and denialism isn't.

Confirmation bias much?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Politics and science are so intertwined it's hard to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
How? Provide a couple examples of what you mean
Buddha2525 said:
"no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity.
Click to expand...
If a scientist follows the scientific method, the closest thing we can currently reach to objectivity is achieved. That's specifically why it was designed, to eliminate subjectivity in scientific experiments
Buddha2525 said:
People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels." Colin Wilson
Click to expand...
Who has "a psychological need not to believe in marvels."?

I don't believe in "marvels" unless there is evidence for them. Not because I have "a psychological need not to believe" in them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top